12 Apr 2022
The application for an extension of time was dismissed because, although the delay was short, the proposed grounds of appeal were without realistic prospect of success, the High Court and Associate Judge had properly considered the matters relied on, any reduction in quantum would not avoid the adjudication, and the appellant failed to engage or file submissions.
17 Sept 2013
The adjudication was properly made on 5 June 2013 because there was a prior act of bankruptcy and an outstanding debt; funds received before the adjudication do not satisfy s 309(1)(c) which requires a substantial change after adjudication; partial payment is insufficient for s 309(1)(b); accordingly neither s 309(1)(a) nor (c) (nor (b)) jurisdictional requirements for annulment were met and the annulment must be dismissed; a further stay was refused because it would be akin to annulment and contrary to the public interest in prompt resolution of insolvency matters.
5 Nov 2008
The petition was dismissed because the debt pleaded in the petition had been paid so the petition's allegations were no longer true at hearing as required by s 26(1); the original petitioner cannot substitute a different debt under s 26(9); and any amendment to plead the second judgment would introduce a claim that is statute-barred by the three-month limitation in s 23(b).
15 Feb 2008
Jurisdictional facts were proved and the debtor failed to discharge the onus to show clear and persuasive grounds not to adjudicate: the appeal was not sufficiently advanced or likely to succeed, no evidence of solvency or ability to pay was provided, and the debtor's history and conduct established commercial hazard; accordingly the Court exercised its discretion to adjudge the debtor bankrupt.
14 Feb 2008
The debtor was estopped from relying on clause 5.1 by his unequivocal admission and consent to judgment in earlier summary judgment proceedings; clause 5.1, construed in context, does not confer a benefit on the debtor; Bridgecorp established jurisdictional facts and entitlement to adjudication; a short stay was granted until 4pm 14 March 2008 to enable a final refinancing attempt, after which adjudication will occur unless the debt is paid or an agreement with the receivers is reached.
17 Apr 2007
The Court exercised its discretion under s26(7) to stay the substituted creditor's petition until the District Court determins the application to set aside the underlying judgment because if that judgment is set aside there would be no foundation for the bankruptcy notice and consequently the substituted petitioner could not satisfy the requirements of s23.
4 Apr 2007
The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed as it was filed well outside the mandatory 14‑day period; the tendered 'commercial instruments' were of no value and did not extinguish the debt; the District Court had jurisdiction and its judgment is final and unchallengeable under the statutory regime; the pending appeal did not merit a stay given its low prospect of success; accordingly the Court exercised its discretion to adjudicate the debtor bankrupt.
27 Mar 2007
The court held that costs should follow the event because the outstanding balance was paid only after the creditor's petition and the judgment debtor failed to provide evidence sufficient to justify departing from the usual rule; accordingly the debtor was ordered to pay costs on a category 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the Registrar.
25 Jan 2007
The court refused the stay and ordered liquidation because the statutory demand requirements under s 241 were met, the balance sheet indicated excess liabilities over assets, there was no credible, explained plan to cure the insolvency (including unresolved secured mortgage and receivership complications), and therefore immediate liquidation and appointment of liquidators was appropriate.
12 Jul 2006
The cross demand relied on was raised as a counterclaim in the earlier proceeding and was found to lack substance by Courtney J; therefore the s19 threshold is not met and the bankruptcy notices must not be set aside; the adjournment to seek leave to appeal was unjustified and denied.